back to Osama and Terrorism...the laws on the books specifically deal with other nations, which was my point...not terrorist organizations that know no boundaries or governments. It is a totally different battle, and I am not trying to diminish one War crime from another.

What the hell are you talking about? Of course, it is valid, and, of course, "innocent until proven guilty" DOES work for Osama bin Laden.

In fact, I think we have plenty of evidence to PROVE his guilt--audio tapes, video tapes, etc. So this question, in many ways, is a non-issue, if only because he's given us PLENTY of evidence to PROVE his GUILT.

Melon

Hmm, what I meant to say is that he's so GUILTY that the statement, "innocent until proven guilty" does not work because he is not innocent to begin with, and we all know that.
So what the hell are you talking about?

yes, he should stand trial to international court. International law punishes the crimes, it does not concentrate so much on what the position of the person is or where the crime happened. If we can trial people who commited horrible acts (far worse than any terrorist attack) like the Nazis or ex-dictators and state leaders I don't see why the same can't happen to Bin Laden.
Yes terrorists don't follow the rules but we do, and until the world puts some acceptable-for-all list of rules on how to handle these things Rule of Law is all we've got.
(considering his Saddam comment, I think we all know where Bush stands as to what the punishment should be)

Originally posted by Bunbury Hmm, what I meant to say is that he's so GUILTY that the statement, "innocent until proven guilty" does not work because he is not innocent to begin with, and we all know that.
So what the hell are you talking about?

He's only guilty, thanks to the mountain of evidence that proves the contrary. He isn't guilty, merely because Generalissimo Bush says so.